Burt does a pretty good job of articulating (in short chapters, averaging 3 pages) why he sees these as the best books ever. You may or may not agree with his choices, but his mini-analyses are suitably trenchant.

One "novel" on this list is well over a million words long. Another is unfinished. Can you guess which ones I'm talking about?(Answers: Nos. 4 and 51, respectively.)

One novel's main character rarely gets off the couch unless it's to go to bed. There is essentially no action. (No. 82.)

One novel's protagonist is a pedophile. (Answer: No. 47, of course.)

One novel was thoroughly reviled by the author of another novel on the list. (I'm talking, of course, about No. 88, which was despised by the author of No. 14.)

Two novels on the list are by the same author. One was, for a time, banned in the U.S. The other, upon publication, was assailed by critics as a waste of paper. (Give up? Nos. 3 and 26. The former was banned.)

I know some of these are great books, and I'm sure most are. But the idea that only 2 novels in the last 50 years are worth cracking the top 100 is hard to believe. For that to be true far too much weight would have to be given to the influence the books have had, or the reputation they've built, as opposed to their actually quality. (Frankenstein, I'm looking at you)

It's a little anglocentric of Mr. Burt to list all the foreign language novels only by their translated English titles (Manzoni's "I Promisi Sposi" becomes 'The Betrothed" for example). Does he rank those foreign language examples as great in their translated editions only—and if that's the case, which of the many translations?